Yeah, but you were less mature then. There are people that think All Time Low speak to them the same way Blink did for you. You're 19 now (according to your profile)...what you thought about Blink was probably at the latest (since the self-titled came out in 2003) when you were 13 years old. 13 years old and 19 years old are completely different mindsets. Don't blame All Time Low if you think they're juvenile...Blink was just as juvenile.
I never claimed ATL was juvenile (and if I did it had no negative connotation), I claimed they lacked substance in their music (and I'll be the first to admit I thought "Champagne" was a damn catchy tune). I think you can easily have both (Your Favorite Weapon and TAYF come to mind, hell I didn't get into Fall Out Boy's "Take This To Your Grave" until last fall and I love it). I still like plenty of music in the vein of All Time Low, and I think they're hard working guys, and if 80% of bands as good as them got the same amount of spotlight I'd be okay with that. But they don't, so I'm not. But anyone can say "x band is too popular when x bands are way better and deserve it", so I guess what I'm saying means nothing.
That being said, Blink was never my favorite band, and a good amount of people I've met who say Blink is their favorite band don't know a lot about all kinds of music that's out there - so I guess that's what happens with mainstream sometimes. Blink and ATL are both examples of bands that strive under mainstream and kind of 'underground' (I know, what a terrible term) spotlight (I don't know what you'd call users here and other sites without sounding pretentious so I just said underground...let's just call them "music lovers") . So maybe the comparison isn't so far off. I think I just argued with myself and your point came out on top. XD. I still don't know what ATL will change five or ten years down the road...but I guess I'll see if I was wrong by then.